Leave out the religious bs of marriage and the titles are almost the same thing. Biggest difference is that marriage requires a certificate and the other does not. Either title is fine with me if you leave out the religious bs. Religion ruins practically everything in the world.

I will continue to be okay with marriage until the law no longer benefits me. People lack an understanding of the law. Too many people want to marry for love or some ridiculous fairy tale. And this mindset causes many of us to unwisely choose parasites oops partners. Marriage in my opinion is a business deal that involves a legal contract. If I marry again, love will come once I know we have a good but flexible "business plan" and a commitment to stick to it. My preference is to live comfortably in this society or world with a man who balances me and I him. But I can do it alone too.

I've long believed inviting lawyers in does nothing to enhance an emotional relationship. My ex-wife and I had been bemused at the whole same-sex marriage thing...why anyone would be so adamant about being allowed to marry...a money thing?
That said, marriage is required by many governments for non-working residency. So, I consider it a prospect, in spite of my basic indifference.

Either is fine by me. However, those tax exemptions for married couples could be pretty sweet. lol

Despite my initial objections to signing a contract with my state of residence, there are plenty of valid, legal arguments to do one of the options you listed. I’d prefer domestic partnership if I do it again.

I don't think marriage is necessary. I think domestic partnerships are more practical. It's cheaper when no kids are involved and less paperwork.

Marriage is a legal contract, that's all. Everything else is implied by society and behavior norms.
One way to think of this: One of a couple has an accident, they are in ICU and the docs will only let family visit. If they are not married then legally the partner is SOL, there is nothing they can do as they are not family by the legal definition.
Just a thought.
If I were to get remarried there will be a prenuptial or no ceremony. I'm not handing my stuff over to her kids.

Is it weird that I lean toward marriage while acknowledging the temporal nature of most relationships?

I've personally never considered marriage to be religious, however I was raised in an agnostic family with married parents and grandparents so I just never made that mental connection. After two divorces I personally believe marriage only realty benefits those with children. That being said, yes I will get married again because marriage is important to my boyfriend even if I'm fairly neutral on it.

I had a domestic partner for 18 years and we had 3 kids together. It was easy to leave the relationship once I did. It has it's pros and cons for sure but I wouldn't throw a legal marriage out the door if the right person came a long.

LTR. No marriage.

Im starting to lean toward the opinion that marriage is unnecessary. When practically and rationally, the idea of being with one person forever and being fullfilled is silly. People grow and change, we need the freedom to do that.

I will never remarry because there would be negative financial repercussions. Why marry and lose money when I can shack up and keep all my benefits and have the benefit of having a partner. Not like we're going to make babies, even then it wouldn't matter. There is no stigma to unmarried parents anymore, and the fur babies don't give a darn.

Marriage is not necessarily a religious ordeal, but is always a contract/legal agreement. I have always felt marriage was something that was to easy to get into and far more expensive to get out of. When you care enough about some one I feel you don't need a piece of paper to make it official.

Marriage just makes you legally bound to the other person. It was never a religious thing to me. Having been there, done that, got divorced, I'm not in any hurry to be married again. But if the person and the time is right, then I'd do it again.

Romance and Love.